“doctrine of merger”

MiscellaneousDoctrine of MergerDoctrine of Merger303 judgments

The decision most relied on for doctrine of merger is Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (245 ITR 360), cited in 361 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on doctrine of merger

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala

245 ITR 360 · 2000 · Supreme Court

361

citing judgments

An order refusing special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, whether speaking or non-speaking, does not attract the doctrine of merger, meaning the order under challenge is not substituted.

1. AIR 1951 SC 467: HARLA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. 2

2 SCC 453 · 1997 · Reported

222

citing judgments

When an appeal or revision is filed against an order passed by a subordinate forum, and a superior forum modifies, reverses, or affirms that decision, the order of the subordinate forum merges into the superior forum's decision, which then becomes the sole operative and enforceable order.

CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd.

293 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court

129

citing judgments

The limitation period for initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 concerning matters not subject to reassessment begins from the date of the original assessment order, not the reassessment order. The doctrine of merger does not apply to issues not examined during reassessment proceedings.

Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu

263 ITR 658 · 2003 · Supreme Court

122

citing judgments

The doctrine of merger applies when appellate jurisdiction is invoked, causing the operative part of a lower court's order or decree to merge into the superior court's order, whether it reverses, modifies, or affirms the original decision. The application of this doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of statutory provisions, and the subject matter challenged.

CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd.

231 ITR 50 · 1998 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263, as clarified by Explanation (c) of Section 263(1) (retrospectively inserted by the Finance Act, 1989), extend to and are deemed always to have extended to matters that were not considered and decided in an appeal. This means the CIT can revise an order even if it was appealed, provided the specific issue under revision was not part of the appeal proceedings.

Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ACIT

108 ITR 407 · 1977 · High Court

citing judgments

A revision order under section 263 is invalid if it is based solely on an audit objection without independent application of mind by the Commissioner. The Assessing Officer must apply their own mind rather than relying on audit party notes.

Employees’ Welfare Assn. v. Union of India

4 SCC 187 · 1989 · Reported

citing judgments

Dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in limine does not amount to a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, nor does it confirm the view of the lower court.

Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry v. CIT

34 ITR 342 · 1958 · High Court

citing judgments

An appellate authority cannot enhance income on an issue that was not the subject matter of the original assessment proceedings. The appellate authority is empowered to decide any matter arising in the assessment proceedings, even if not raised in the appeal, provided it is covered by the order appealed against.

Judgments citing doctrine of merger

Amanta Healthcare Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 1088/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 43B

assessee that the Ld. PCIT was precluded from passing the revisional order u/s 263 of the Act on the ground of application of doctrine of merger, is rejected. 6.2 The error in the assessment order is also apparent from the fact that the Assessing Officer had taken the income computed

Thangamuthu Balakrishnan, Tiruppur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 719/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 719/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A '(For Respondent: Mr. C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

landmark judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarised the doctrine of merger as follows:- "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal or any other authority ... stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and the special leave petition is converted into an appeal. (iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum

Fusion Granito Private Limited, Morbi vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 190/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. PCIT and other material brought on record. We note that the doctrine of merger means that once a higher appellate authority passes an order, the lower authority’s order gets merged into the higher authority’s order ... order continues to hold the field, since there has been no judicial examination on merits by the appellate authority by ld.CIT(A). The doctrine of merger would not apply in this case, because the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on limitation without deciding on merits. Hence, the order of PCIT

Chinnappan Peter Francis, Kumbakonam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1484/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1484/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Chinnappan Peter Ito, Francis, Vs. Ward I, No. 113, Kamraj Road, Kumbakonam. Bishops House, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Bwspp-2816-G] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 : 09.09.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Dated 17.04.2025, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Against The Order U/S.147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Passed By The Ito (Assessing Officer), Ward I, Thanjavur Dated 30.01.2024. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar For The Assessee Mr.Y.Sridhar, Advocate For The Assessee Has Raised An Additional Ground Relating To Jurisdiction Of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (‘Jao’) In The Light Of The Cbdt Notification Dated 29.03.2022 & The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of Tvs Credit Services Ltd. Vs. Dcit (W.P.No.22402 Of 2024 Dated 24.06.2025). The Ld.Dr, Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl.Cit, Objected Admission Of Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee.

For Respondent: Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

Arvind Kumar, Panipat vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2178/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 37Section 69C

Gujarat High Court and it is a settled law that such an order does not get binding force not covered under the doctrine of merger finds force. The question before Gujarat High Court was regarding quantum of addition of bogus purchases i.e. 100% or 25% and section of disallowance (s.69C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. Pawan Cargo Forwards Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms above and cross objection filed by the assessee become infructuous in terms of our above order

ITA 3116/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3116/Chny/2024 (िनधा&रणवष& / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Pawan Cargo Forwards Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Vs. 518, Mkn Road, Pawan Imperia, Circle-1(Ltu) Alandur Mkn Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan: Aaccp 2477P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.06.2025

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

Gaurav Logistics, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1111/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.:1111/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Logistics, Income Tax Officer 32, Gaurav Vara, New Avadi Road, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Chennai 600 010. Chennai. [Pan: Aaffg-1902-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hithesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Dated 14.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Filed A Memorandum Of Addition Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Validity Of The Assumption Of Jurisdiction For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148 Of Gaurav Logistics

For Appellant: Shri Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 250

landmark judgment in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarized the doctrine of merger as follows:- "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal or any other authority ... stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and the special leave petition is converted into an appeal. (iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum

Kandasamy Selvaraj, Thothukudi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 1852/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1852/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Kandasamy Selvaraj, The Dcit, 66A-20, Ambal Nagar, Central Circle-1, Madurai Main Road, Madurai-2. Vilathikulam-628 907. Thoothukudi District. [Pan: Baips 2224 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.Balasubramanian, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Veeramany.K., IRS

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Chellappan Sankaranathan, Sivaganga vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 930/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.930/2025 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Mr.N.V. Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

landmark judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarized the doctrine of merger as follows:- "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal or any other authority ... stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and the special leave petition is converted into an appeal. (iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum

Cupid Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pricipal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 478/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shubhash Shetty & Shri Vinayaka RaoFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 69C

section 263 cannot be revoked when the larger issue is pending before the CIT (A), which is based on the principle of doctrine of merger, according to which there cannot be more than one decree or operative order giving the same subject matter at a given point of time, particularly

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 683/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

High Court not render the decision of Hon'ble Court to be non-binding and the doctrine of merger would still be applicable. In any case, we find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the aforesaid decision concurred with the legal proposition laid down

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 660/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

Shree Siddhi Infrabuild Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1021/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1021/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Siddhi Infrabuild Private Limited D-1001, Ganesh Meridian Opp. Kargil Petrol Pump Nr. Gujarat High Court Ahmedabad – 380 060 बनाम / V/S.\The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 Ambawadi Ahmedabad – 380 014 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aalcs 4509 A (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Shrunjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”) Dated 15/03/2024 Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") For The

For Appellant: Ms.Shrunjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

held that an order of assessment is subject to exercise of an order of a revisional jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. That the doctrine of merger, in such a case, will have no application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, observed that initiation of a proceeding u/s.263

Riaz Ali, Tiruvarur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 790/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/2025 (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Riaz Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.2-A, Puliyangudi North (International Taxation)-2(1), Street, Koothanallur, Tiruvarur, Chennai. Tamil Nadu-614 101. [Pan:Auepr2020H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2025, Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Intl Taxn Ward 2(1) Che, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.147 R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Dated 26.12.2024. 2 Ita No.790/Chny/2025 (Ay 2018-19) Riaz Ali

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT

Section 127Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54

The Naval Dockyard Co Op Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 4281/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanthe Naval Dockyard Co- Vs. Dcit Circle1(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Op Bank Limited Mumbai-400 020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Road Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No. Aabat7232R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jayesh Kala, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

income as per 143(1), the grievance raised by the assessee raised from the assessment order only. Therefore, it held that the doctrine of merger applies, and the grievance The Naval Dockyard Co-Op Bank Limited arises from the AO under section 143(3) of the Act and therefore ... 144B of the Act. Accordingly, we accept the contention of the Assessee that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the doctrine of merger would apply. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Revenue that the CIT(A) erred in entertaining and adjudicating the grounds raised

Pandyan Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 945/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.945/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Pandyan Automobiles Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.48 Bye Pass Road, Madurai, Corporate Circle, Tamil Nadu-625 016. Madurai. [Pan: Aadcp5203C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 : घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

Kuppusamy Muthuvel, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 944/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.944/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Kuppusamy Muthuvel, The Income Tax Officer, No.23/1 Arasu Elango Street, Ward-2(4), Eripalayajm Po, Udumalpet Tk, Tirupur. Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-642126 [Pan: Axepm0652R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

landmark judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarised the doctrine of merger as follows:- Kuppusamy Muthuvel :: 6 :: "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal ... stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and the special leave petition is converted into an appeal. (iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 602/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

this, we find no merit in the appeals and special leave petitions. Accordingly, the appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed." 25. The doctrine of merger results in the settled legal position that the judgment of the Delhi High Court stands affirmed by the above decision in the Civil Appeals

Kumaresan Bhagavathiperumal Pillai, Kanyakumari vs. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Tuticorin

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1357/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1357/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Kumaresan Bhagavathiperumal Pillai, The Ito, 12-5 G/4, Kumaragam Garden, International Taxation Ward, Channel Street, Vadakkoor, Thovalai, Tuticorin. Kanyakumari 629 302. [Pan: Ahepb 2348 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai-16, (Hereinafter In Short ‘The Ld.Cit(A)’), Dated 31.07.2024 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short ‘Ay’) 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of ‘224’ Days In Filing The Appeal. Considering The Period Of Delay & Reasons Pleaded, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication. Kumaresan Bhagavathiperumal Pillai :: 2 :: 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Raised An Additional Ground Relating To Jurisdiction Of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (‘Jao’) In The Light Of The Cbdt Notification Dated 29.03.2022. The Ld.Dr, Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit, Objected Admission Of Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee.

For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

M/S. Bata India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1073/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 115PSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 250

channels of rectification and appeal have been availed by the assessee. 8. However, in this context, it is relevant to examine the doctrine of merger. The intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act is separately appealable to the Ld. CIT(A) under section 246A ... assessment years 1990-91, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 were to be quashed. [Para 21] 11. The doctrine of merger is a common law doctrine that is rooted in the idea of maintenance of the decorum of hierarchy of courts and tribunals, the doctrine is based